Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RIP Doha Round Of WTO Talks  
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17428 posts, RR: 46
Posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1328 times:

"Global free trade talks collapsed on Monday after nearly five years of on-off haggling and resuming them could take years, officials and diplomats said."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/07/24/wto.talks.reut/index.html


E pur si muove -Galileo
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6698 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1323 times:

And there will never be free trade because there are far too many vested interests wanting to protect their own markets and bottom lines.

Rich countries want to keep the poor countries poor, because where else would they get their cheap labour for manufacturing, growing/picking food, etc? They don't want poor countries to have their own economies because they'd then be competition and we can't have that can we?



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17428 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1316 times:

Quoting Oly720man (Reply 1):
Rich countries want to keep the poor countries poor, because where else would they get their cheap labour for manufacturing, growing/picking food, etc?

I disagree. The biggest problem is that rich countries are coddling their own agriculture industries, which is keeping poor countries poor. If they gave up their obscene agricultural subsidies (specifically the EU, US, and Japan), food prices in those countries would plummet. We'd get cheaper food, and those growing food in third world countries could finally get access to the world market.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3079 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1313 times:

That is geat news.....

You can nver have free trade when there is such a desparity of wealth and power. How can Micronesia tell the USA or Europe what to do or open borders when they have nothing that can force them....Free trade is all about exploiting the thrid world to produce our consumer goods cheap and stripping their natural resources.

There is no way that small thrid world countries have the means to buy some of the big multinationals so what happens is they step in and by local means of production basically turning the country into an off site factory for their operation. the only thing left is for the small third world countries to stay poor.

Do you really think the USA would let China buy a large USA based oil production company? Oh wait China tried that and the USA sent up "no" road blocks.

Hell, in We could not do that with the USA on softwood lumber and we won at most tribunals and and all NAFTA tribunals. They just ignored it.

We learned you can win in all the courts and tribunals but you cannot force a country tp pay unless it is in their self intrest.

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17428 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1305 times:

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 3):
Free trade is all about exploiting the thrid world to produce our consumer goods cheap and stripping their natural resources.

How can that be true when we are preventing entry to third world goods and subsidizing our own manufacturers and farmers?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3079 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1295 times:

Look at the clothes and shoes you are wearing.....Look at all your consumer goods such as DVD players computers( components in side) etc....See where they are manufactured...I am willing to bet for the most part they are no built in USA...The flow of goods and resources for the most part is one way.



GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17428 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 5):
The flow of goods and resources for the most part is one way.

But if we want cheap goods, why don't we extend that to everything then, including agricultural goods and textiles?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3079 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1283 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):
But if we want cheap goods, why don't we extend that to everything then, including agricultural goods and textiles?

Textiles are done...Most clothes are off shore.

Food (agriculture) I have no problem with countries protecting that..I like that canada refuse milk from the rest of the world. We do not allow hormones in it others do. One of the fundamental roles of gov't is food saftey and if that means keeping unsafe food out no problem...I am willing to pay for that....

Remember i am happy the doha round has failed...I wabt quality food NOT cheap food...

gs



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17428 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1278 times:

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 7):
Textiles are done...Most clothes are off shore.

Only recently, and followed by a lot of back pedaling after everyone realized that a lot of Chinese textiles were flooding the market.

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 7):
We do not allow hormones in it others do.

That is such a red herring. I can almost guarantee you, without knowing anything about Canada or their dairy lobby, that the only reason they are not letting foreign dairy in is because the dairy lobby doesn't want the competition.

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 7):
Remember i am happy the doha round has failed...I wabt quality food NOT cheap food...

But you don't mind cheap manufactured goods? How do you differentiate "quality" sugar whether it comes from the US or Brazil? And how do you square the fact that countries are willing to go to the lowest bidder for manufacturing but not agriculture, but at the same time they're only interested in exploiting third world countries?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3079 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1275 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8):
But you don't mind cheap manufactured goods? How do you differentiate "quality" sugar whether it comes from the US or Brazil?



But that is the thing...i am not willing to compromise....I am willing to sacrifice that brazilian sugar if the same policy keeps out beef from the UK ( I know Canada now has mad cow and yes i do not eat red meat anymore because of it it is just an example) . With free trade the sugar may not come from brazil butSudan and have no qualty control...When you let one thing in you have to let in everything. Yes some safe products may be kept out but in the end it keeps out most unsafe products.

As for manufacturing...well call me champagn socialist.....I guess i am a hypocrite....but having a cheap DVD player does not afect my health......Unsafe food can do that....To me there are two fundamental things gov't does...Health and food saftey.....Those are two things i am not willing to budge on...

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1264 times:

I'm not really sure I understand what this is all about.

A lot of folks rage about "farm subsidies" in the US and in Europe, particularly France, for creating distortions of trade that together keep the third world farmer out of international markets.

The picture painted is of a dirt poor guy in a loincloth trying to sell a bale of cotton produced on a starvation farm to some buncha rich bastards who won't let him live. It's far from the truth.

I do not know what farm subsidies in France are like, but I understand it is to a large part culturally driven. France, unlike other countries, realizes that without a vibrant agricultural economy in which folks can stay down on the farm, produce a top notch product and still enjoy a modicum of comfort, that something will be lost that will be impossible to put back together, the kids'll move to the cities, and factory farms will take over as they have in much of the states.

Here in the states we do have subsidies in the form of price supports for commodities-corn, wheat, oats, cotton, rice, and soybeans, I think. What happens is that the farmer is guaranteed a price that exceeds the cost of production. If the world market price declines below a set level that takes these facts into account, the government buys the commodities or makes up the deficiency.

Contrary to popular thinking, the commodity price supports of this type tend to support prices worldwide, because we're big enough to influence market price swings by government intervention. In a word, commodity price supports in the US benefit farmers the world over by supporting world prices.

Another US "subsidy" is the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program, which pays farmers a modest amount to not farm highly erodible land or wetlands, and to let the land go back to pasture and grassland. Rather than being a 'subsidy' the taxpayers are buying conservation value from landowners because we think it's important.

So clearly that cannot be what the people who object to these things are angry about.

The picture, instead, is of agribusiness in a few countries that would really like to get into the markets in a way they have not before-Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and India primarily. Their cost of production is low because they use low cost labor instead of high cost machinery and diesel fuel, and in the case of Brazil are on a track to plant the entire Amazon basin with soybeans, and they don't much care what the long term effects on the environment are.

So...if they can get the US to eliminate deficiency payments and loans, they can depress the market price and force yet more farmers off the land in this country-something we, like the French, do not want as a matter of social policy.

Ultimately, it has nothing to do with the oft promoted picture of a little guy in a loincloth starving to produce a few hundred pounds of cotton getting foiled by the nasty westerners. It has to do with big agribusiness in the developing world which sees an opportunity to do to our farmers what the Chinese have done to manufacturing.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6793 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1259 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
Here in the states we do have subsidies in the form of price supports for commodities-corn, wheat, oats, cotton, rice, and soybeans, I think. What happens is that the farmer is guaranteed a price that exceeds the cost of production. If the world market price declines below a set level that takes these facts into account, the government buys the commodities or makes up the deficiency.

Except the overproduction is then matched with a bad science decision like subsidizing corn growers vis a vis ethanol in automobile fuel.

The artificial inhibitors in agriculture are far-reaching and largely detrimental to the overall market, IMO.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1248 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 11):
The artificial inhibitors in agriculture are far-reaching and largely detrimental to the overall market, IMO.

Speaking purely in economic terms you may have an argument.

On the other hand you're getting into the area of what's good social policy and the economists are not the only game in town although they'd like to think they are.

What you say about corn and ethanol does not take into account the fact that after the production process is complete what you have is DDGS, which is not only good cattle feed, but it is improved by the byproducts of yeast and fermentation. So just as many cows get just as much corn as they formerly did-only we got to the carbohydrate before they did.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17428 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 1232 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
In a word, commodity price supports in the US benefit farmers the world over by supporting world prices.

How is that physically possible when farmers the world over don't have access to the US market and thus US pricing?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 1232 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):
"Global free trade talks collapsed on Monday after nearly five years of on-off haggling and resuming them could take years, officials and diplomats said."

The "negotiators" should have been locked into the negotiation hall and should only have been provided by some water and some dry bread, and only have been released after having signed something substantial.


User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 1222 times:

Although in Argentina it isn't such a huge issue, in other poorer countries access to medicine is a big problem because of high prices. So it is very ironic that some countries call their protectionism of their farmers 'social policy', yet they are the first ones to blast the poorest countries in Africa or countries like Brazil and China for breaking patent rights to make cheaper medicines for their citizens.

I say if France and the US want to protect their farm economies to protect the culture and social fabric of those areas, then stop whining when the poorest countries like those in Africa or the like want to have cheap medicine for their citizens, even if it's breaking some proprietary law in a country thousands of miles away from the sickbed of a patient with AIDS.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17428 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 1217 times:

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 14):
The "negotiators" should have been locked into the negotiation hall and should only have been provided by some water and some dry bread, and only have been released after having signed something substantial.

Amen...without air conditioning, in Doha.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 1212 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 13):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
In a word, commodity price supports in the US benefit farmers the world over by supporting world prices.

How is that physically possible when farmers the world over don't have access to the US market and thus US pricing?

Simply because the farmer is a price taker, not a price maker, and there's a world market for fungible products like grain. It sells for the same on the dock in India, in China, in South Africa, and in Chicago. The prices are set in world commodity exchanges. Something that drives the furutes price up in Chicago, like farm policy in one of the large grain producing countries, drives it up all over the world.

Why is gold or oil the same price all over the world? Same reason. It's a commodity.

Didja ever listen to the commodity price reports at noon, when they talk about Dalien Futures? That's China.


User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 1210 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 2):
The biggest problem is that rich countries are coddling their own agriculture industries, which is keeping poor countries poor. If they gave up their obscene agricultural subsidies (specifically the EU, US, and Japan), food prices in those countries would plummet. We'd get cheaper food, and those growing food in third world countries could finally get access to the world market.

While the same rich countries (incl Switzerland btw) pressurize the food producers of the Third World to give free access to industrial products

Quoting Derico (Reply 15):
in other poorer countries access to medicine is a big problem because of high prices. So it is very ironic that some countries call their protectionism of their farmers 'social policy', yet they are the first ones to blast the poorest countries in Africa or countries like Brazil and China for breaking patent rights to make cheaper medicines for their citizens.

one of the problems is that the protected farmers of industrialized countries have their political parties who block any move in favour of poorer countries, while the leaders of the pharmaceutical industry are among the most powerful people anyway


User currently offlineBlrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 1204 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
Contrary to popular thinking, the commodity price supports of this type tend to support prices worldwide, because we're big enough to influence market price swings by government intervention. In a word, commodity price supports in the US benefit farmers the world over by supporting world prices.

Nope, not exactly true. US wants countries to lower tariff and open up their market for US agriculture goods, ones which have been heavily subsidised. And the cost of production is not always lower in developing countries. In many of these countries, the landlords have very small land holdings like 10-20 acres, and since they can't benefit from economies of scale like in US etc, the cost of production is not as low as it is made out to be.


India blames US for collapse of WTO talks


Quote:
...
"There are big gaps in mindsets. The US brought nothing to the table. It (US) wants market access in India and other developing countries for their subsidised agricultural products at the cost of security of livelihood of our farmers and this is not acceptable," he said.

"The US offer (to reduce subsidies) is not enough. In fact, it is no offer," he said. The US gives 19.5 billion dollars as domestic support and wants the flexibility to increase it by another three billion dollars, he added.
...
Nath said the US has been virtually isolated in the trade talks, since even the European Union has supported the position of developing countries led by India and Brazil. ...


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 1204 times:

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 3):
That is geat news.....

You can nver have free trade when there is such a desparity of wealth and power. How can Micronesia tell the USA or Europe what to do or open borders when they have nothing that can force them....Free trade is all about exploiting the thrid world to produce our consumer goods cheap and stripping their natural resources.

There is no way that small thrid world countries have the means to buy some of the big multinationals so what happens is they step in and by local means of production basically turning the country into an off site factory for their operation. the only thing left is for the small third world countries to stay poor.

Do you really think the USA would let China buy a large USA based oil production company? Oh wait China tried that and the USA sent up "no" road blocks.

Hell, in We could not do that with the USA on softwood lumber and we won at most tribunals and and all NAFTA tribunals. They just ignored it.

We learned you can win in all the courts and tribunals but you cannot force a country tp pay unless it is in their self intrest.

Dude, give it up. Softwood lumber is a done deal and been settled. You were right. We wuz wrong. We're settling for eighty cents on the dollar which is a helluva lot better than most lawsuits get settled for.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

Quoting Blrsea (Reply 19):
Nope, not exactly true. US wants countries to lower tariff and open up their market for US agriculture goods, ones which have been heavily subsidised. And the cost of production is not always lower in developing countries. In many of these countries, the landlords have very small land holdings like 10-20 acres, and since they can't benefit from economies of scale like in US etc, the cost of production is not as low as it is made out to be.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Commodity prices are set world wide. What swings the market in the US by supporting the price, swings the market in India. And guaranteeing farmers the cost of production in the US, supports better prices for farmers all over the world who raise the same crop as we're talking about-corn, rice, wheat, cotton, oats and soybeans.

As a matter of fact, let's say, the US and France end farm subsidies tomorrow. Do you know what would happen? The prices on farm products would crash, worldwide. And then we'd really dominate because the cost of production is lower here, and in Brazil, and South Africa, Canada, and the other grain producing countries with mechanized agriculture.

U.S. farm policy is the one quintessential factor that lets a farmer in India say "I take xxx kilos of wheat to market, this is the price I can expect because it's what No.2 hard wheat traded on the Merc yesterday, and I heard it on the radio." And that, in turn, lets this hypothetical farmer go to the bank and say "Hey. Lend me some money for a cultivator, I've got xxx tons in the field, this is how much it's worth." And the banker checks the price on the Merc and says, "Here's your check."

Eradicate what we're doing here and that all goes away.

Take that away and you have chaos in world agriculture. We had that, and it ended up with the dirty thirties in this country. Price supports that set a level playing field for all farmers are a good thing, don't kid yourself.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 1192 times:

Quoting Derico (Reply 15):
Although in Argentina it isn't such a huge issue, in other poorer countries access to medicine is a big problem because of high prices. So it is very ironic that some countries call their protectionism of their farmers 'social policy', yet they are the first ones to blast the poorest countries in Africa or countries like Brazil and China for breaking patent rights to make cheaper medicines for their citizens.

I say if France and the US want to protect their farm economies to protect the culture and social fabric of those areas, then stop whining when the poorest countries like those in Africa or the like want to have cheap medicine for their citizens, even if it's breaking some proprietary law in a country thousands of miles away from the sickbed of a patient with AIDS.

Dude, you're making a fundamental logical error, because you're setting up a false dichotomy. The issue isn't even remotely the same, and linking them is specious.

I for one say if countries need patent protected meds and they can't afford them, why reverse engineer them and have at it.

But don't invest too much sympathy here for the self proclaimed underdog...it's a complicated issue you've raised and there is plenty enough blame to go around-not the least of which comes from the pharmaceutical giants of the countries in question who would like nothing more than to get a free pass on IP while waving the bloody shirt of AIDS., and then re-export their product to the developed world and get a big slice of that high dollar market....


User currently offlineBlrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 1185 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
U.S. farm policy is the one quintessential factor that lets a farmer in India say "I take xxx kilos of wheat to market, this is the price I can expect because it's what No.2 hard wheat traded on the Merc yesterday, and I heard it on the radio." And that, in turn, lets this hypothetical farmer go to the bank and say "Hey. Lend me some money for a cultivator, I've got xxx tons in the field, this is how much it's worth." And the banker checks the price on the Merc and says, "Here's your check."

Unfortunately, that is not how it works in India, and probably in other developing countries too. There are middle men who just purchase the crop from farmers and sell it at a higher profit. And financing is tough too because of low farm holdings, and the farmer has to literally pledge his farm to get credit sometimes. And if a crop fails, the farmer ends up with a huge loan. In fact, around 500+ farmers committed suicide in India last year because they couldn't repay the loans, as either the crop failed or prices crashed worldwide and they couldn't make as much as they expected to.

If there is a glut of one commodity in some region of the world and prices come down, the US will still sell their produce at the lower price, but since the farmers get compensated for their losses, the US farmers don't lose out. US is not going to keep the prices up. Say the price of Soyabean is $50 per ton. If there is glut, price may fall to $40, and US will still sell at $40. It won't keep it products in warehouses. But the farmers are paid whatever is the difference between the cost of production and price the govt buys. Hence they farmers don't lose out. However, countries like India cannot afford to give $19-20 billions of subsidies to the farmers.


User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 1182 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
let's say, the US and France end farm subsidies tomorrow.

the financial subsidies are NOT the matter. The actual problem for the "Third World" countries rather are trade-barriers against agricultural products of them.


25 MaverickM11 : And that's a bad thing? Over a short period of time it would be difficult but ultimately it would lead to a better allocation of resources. I don't k
26 Dougloid : Well, that, unfortunately is true. Our farmers who are in commodity price support programs will get paid the difference and the government takes owne
27 Navymidn : MaverickM11, getting rid of farm subsidies is not as easy as you might think. As someone stated, what they do is keep the price above cost. Without th
28 MaverickM11 : I know it's not easy--if it were easy we wouldn't be having this discussion and the WTO round at Doha would have been redundant. Why don't we subsidi
29 Derico : Well the two issues are indeed quite different, but the main point regarding 'social welfare' is a valid comparison. If those countries that protect
30 Dougloid : One thing we learned in the 1930s in this country is that we're only one meal away from the breakdown of civil society. Ever heard of the food riots
31 Dougloid : Absolutely correct.
32 MaverickM11 : I completely disagree. Japan went through a similar contraction (in terms of GDP growth) in the 90s with much milder social consequences. The US econ
33 Dougloid : Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. My post graduate major's agricultural law and policy from the University of Arkansas schoo
34 L410Turbolet : Do you think that if 40% of EUs budget is being spent on subsidizing 4% of EU's population (farmers), which (agriculture) generates 2% of EU's GDP is
35 ME AVN FAN : - Looking through the various posts I realize that we in regard to subsidies speak about two different things. In most of Europe, agriculture gets su
36 Dougloid : The issue of farm subsidies is a complicated one. I don't understand the nuances of it well, and I've had quite a bit of exposure to the subject at t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Round Of Applause For Paul Robinson posted Fri Oct 13 2006 12:32:43 by Nighthawk
Another Round Of Bloody Attacks In Iraq posted Thu Jan 5 2006 18:00:34 by Sabenapilot
Another Round Of Caption This Pic: Soccer Style posted Tue Dec 13 2005 15:04:10 by PhotoLPPT
Another Round Of: "Which One Are You?" ;) posted Fri Nov 18 2005 22:31:34 by Pilot kaz
Nth Round Of Self Pics posted Thu Apr 17 2003 21:41:54 by Turbolet
World Cup 2002 - Round Of 16 Fixtures posted Fri Jun 14 2002 16:13:54 by LY772
RIP Carl Brashear..man Behind Movie "Men Of Honor" posted Wed Jul 26 2006 16:32:05 by Slider
Aksai Chin - Why No One Talks Of It posted Thu Oct 20 2005 19:10:07 by HAWK21M
The Wheels Of Justice Go Round, Questions posted Wed Oct 12 2005 00:19:32 by Ilikeyyc
Britney In Talks To Launch Reality Show Of Tour posted Wed Apr 14 2004 23:53:40 by ConcordeBoy